https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354359 At the stage of discharge and framing of charge, the Court held that the complaint read with the adjudication order could disclose a prima facie case against directors for prosecution under the SEBI Act on the basis of vicarious liability. It noted that the complaint alleged the applicants were responsible for the company's business and had deliberately failed to pay the penalty, while the adjudication order showed their involvement in the underlying proceedings and the finality of the penalty order. The absence of the exact words "in charge of" was not decisive where the averments and supporting material, taken together, indicated responsibility and non-compliance. The refusal to discharge was therefore upheld and the prosecution remained maintainable. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:52:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354359 At the stage of discharge and framing of charge, the Court held that the complaint read with the adjudication order could disclose a prima facie case against directors for prosecution under the SEBI Act on the basis of vicarious liability. It noted that the complaint alleged the applicants were responsible for the company's business and had deliberately failed to pay the penalty, while the adjudication order showed their involvement in the underlying proceedings and the finality of the penalty order. The absence of the exact words "in charge of" was not decisive where the averments and supporting material, taken together, indicated responsibility and non-compliance. The refusal to discharge was therefore upheld and the prosecution remained maintainable. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354359